4/6/2007 Code Update Q&A

Grakus · **Posted:** Sat Apr 07, 2007 7:06 pm

just a little gnome wrote:

Okay, as I am experiencing at this very moment, Necro's get screwed period. I am here with 3 elite undead but I can't walk through Zhensh because I have golden griffons spawning and throwing axes at me that take 30% of my hp per hit. Now normally I would go Ethereal, but I can't really do that because somehow these griffon barbarians learned to fade into ether, so I use mirror image scrolls which 4 scrolls last me oh about 5 fights, without guarunteed protection, how am I supposed to avoid getting hit when I have 3 griffons pop up throwing what appears to be unlimited axes at me? I have to sleep after every fight and were I be in a PK situation I'd be severely hindered by this fact, I think something needs to be done either about the bounty NPCs going ethereal, or them not having throwing weapons.

I think Dulrik is well aware this code is not thought out and needs work. A roll back of the 'new features' is what I'd advise till more things can be tested.

Konge · **Posted:** Sat Apr 07, 2007 7:52 pm

Priests had no chance of defeating a bounty NPC such as a necrophidius or a golden griffon before.

*cheerio*

I suppose I shouldn't whine, considering I'm in a tribunal. Suck it! :devil:

Benzo Balrog · **Joined:** Mon Sep 15, 2003 5:48 am **Posts:** 1306

Grakus wrote:

I'm aware, but why are religious spells 'better' for light/cloth faiths than heavy if magical vestments sorted it all out?

I'm rather confused.

Magical vestments with neither intended to equalize cloth and armored religions, nor did it in fact do so. All priests have the option of using MV (this is still true, right?). Furthermore, MV+cloth/scale still requires both concentration and good enchants to make armor that is comparable to heavy armor.

Dulrik · **Posted:** Sat Apr 07, 2007 10:01 pm

silmar wrote:

I dont see why all throwing is always targeted at the player. It seems quite strange considering you are trying to make it no different between NPCs and PC. If I have a charmy how are they going to know its a charmy, shouldnt they be attacking the guy who is lumping them over the head rather than throwing weapons at the guy sitting behind them doing nothing.

Most cases are quite obvious. The soldier with the vacant stare that is continously responding to the robed figure's command to 'bash him!' sounds pretty obvious to me. Elementals and undead are well known to follow the command of others. And if there is a man fighting next to a bear, he probably is at least friends with it. Would YOU be fooled?

silmar wrote:

Throw should be a part of the AI and slot in next to should I bash trip cast a spell etc. It should not be I throw every round because I know thats a PC behind that bear and if I kill him the bear will wander off harmlessly.

It already is. Throw is just one tactic that an NPC can use during the round. If they decide to bash or cast a spell, they won't also throw.

Dulrik · **Posted:** Sat Apr 07, 2007 10:03 pm

Grakus wrote:

I think Dulrik is well aware this code is not thought out and needs work. A roll back of the 'new features' is what I'd advise till more things can be tested.

Don't presume to speak for me. Minor tweaks are being tested, but there aren't going to be any roll-backs of any of these features. On the whole, the reaction to these changes is exactly what I expected it would be. Balance changes are never popular.

WarlordPayne · **Joined:** Fri Jul 01, 2005 10:55 pm **Posts:** 594

lol So removing the more fragile classes' ability to protect themselves is balance huh? I think the next balance change should be to remove heavy armor. I mean it stops so much more damage than cloth or light armor, it's just not fair that only some people can use it.

I think this change would have been at least a little more acceptable if it made some kind of sense ICly. Why do bums wandering the streets of Teron have their own little pocket dimension from which they can draw an endless supply of throwing weapons when PCs don't? The implementation of this change is nothing short of ridiculous.

Grakus · **Posted:** Sat Apr 07, 2007 10:41 pm

Dulrik wrote:

Grakus wrote:

I think Dulrik is well aware this code is not thought out and needs work. A roll back of the 'new features' is what I'd advise till more things can be tested.

Don't presume to speak for me. Minor tweaks are being tested, but there aren't going to be any roll-backs of any of these features. On the whole, the reaction to these changes is exactly what I expected it would be. Balance changes are never popular.

Not to knock you, D, but, what you're saying is you knew precisely how buggy, poorly implemented, and silly this code update was? Because that's precisely what it was, sorry to say. But not like we all don't make mistakes here and there.

Personally, I'd have gone with my interpretation though.

Muktar · **Posted:** Sat Apr 07, 2007 11:49 pm

D, even though it does hurt those in lower levels. This is great and will make the NPCs even more unique. The only thing I agree with here is that they should only have a certain number of the said object in their inventory and it also should be limited to higher level NPCs. I really think that this would help people group up a lot more in higher levels.

On another note, Grakus this is gameplay not GD . . .please leave your ignorant remarks to there.

Grakus · **Posted:** Sun Apr 08, 2007 12:01 am

Muktar wrote:

On another note, Grakus this is gameplay not GD . . .please leave your ignorant remarks to there.

What I'm getting at, in a round-a-bout way, is that more tweaking needs to be done and it did not go that smoothly. It's not that I'm making 'ignorant' remarks, I caught a handful of bugs within 5 minutes after the update, and the entire playerbase doesn't a) see a need for this change (even if there is one), and b) there was no real explanation given to them as to why it is necessary.

So of course the implementation was done in a silly fashion. Implementation of new code is definitely a gameplay issue. It isn't a random flame, and I've done everything in my power to test this out and report anything I find 'wrong' with it. I assure you, it's not because 'I don't want it' but because I know if I don't test the code out, SK doesn't improve.

Muktar · **Posted:** Sun Apr 08, 2007 12:17 am

Grakus, like I said. To assume that the pbase didn't think it should happen or not is irrelevant. It is *only* a very small number of people that are heavily complaining about this part of the update. Tweaking, is done in all software after it goes live. No number of testing can flush out all of the bugs, hence my remark. The implementation IMO was just fine. It was the best "product" that they had at the time. Not knowing Big D too well, I do know this. He does make an honest effort to test and make sure that the code that we might be using is bug free. Just like any software though, once it goes live, a whole new set of bugs and tweaks usually need to happen. If they don't (which Big D never said no) they are a dead co.

Shattered Kingdoms

4/6/2007 Code Update Q&A

Who is online